Ross
argues that contemporary art can interrogate notions of
simultaneity, temporality, and new visions the future once the idea
of progress is finally separated from “the modern regime
of historicity.” Are there similar movements in other
fields, such as literature, in the past
decades?

Ross claims “perception in
late twentieth century and early twenty-first century has been
increasingly conditioned by demands of interactivity, multitasking,
hypersolicitation of attention, and acceleration” (16).
What do with think of this claim, and diagnostic,
mass-psychological claims such as this?

In
disciplinary debates concerning time, Ross argues that Art, and its
“temporal turn,” uniquely attempts to connect
phenomenologically and historically oriented investigations of time
(19). Is this generalization tenable?

Ross
agrees with Pam Lee that the 1960s constitute a significant
‘turn’ in contemporary art concerned with
temporality. Is this shift noticeable in other fields, and is it
causally related or correlated to larger cultural, social,
historical, or intellectual
developments?

Useful terms: historicity,
temporality, finitude, temporal turn (presentifying the regime of
historicity by keeping the past as long as possible in the present
to influence the future, making the present interminable, p.304),
Benjamin’s montage, contemporaneity
(49-50).

We
will have light refreshments, but feel free to bring along a more
substantial packed lunch.